>> there will be a certain aspect in september. this is the safety culture aspect believed to be the root cause of concerns of that plant. >> you will be sharing that with us? is that early september? >> i don't have a specific date. we will get back to you with more information. >> yield back. >> the chair recognizes mr. dingell for five minutes. >> thank you for your courtesy. these questions for chairman

macfarlane. i have concerns related to part 52 licensing process for group facilities. it is my understanding this process is intended to provide construction and operating license through the same review and streamline previous part 50 process. when the first round of part 52 license applications came into the nrc in 2007 hyphenate the stated goal was to complete the reviews in 36 months. since that time the time has been raised to 42-48 months and it seems many are headed for 6 the month review. this is occurring even as there are less applications in the review pipeline. my question to you is is the nrc committed to these reviews in an

expedited manner, yes or no? >> the nrc is committed to completing these reviews as the efficiently as possible. >> thank you. there has been frustration on the slowness of the relationship process. is the nrc committed to complete these licensing reviews in an expedited manner? please enter yes or no? >> the nrc is committed to completing these relations and reviews as efficiently as possible. >> madam chairman, you were a member of the blue ribbon commission that recognizes working with communities that might volunteer for a single place storage site. how long would such a process take to finalize? >> it is totally uncertain. it could take a few years or it

could take decades. it entirely depends on the situation. >> that is a fair answer. madam chairman, can you tell us what would be the cost of this exercise? >> the cost of working with the community? entirely depends. >> to finalize the process? >> it entirely depends in part on how much compensation is decided for the community and in what form the compensation would be. >> thank you. under current law how many sites are authorized to be evaluated? licensed as a single storage site? >> one. >> does the nrc currently have the funding to move forward to evaluate and license fee yet the mountain facility?

yes or no? >> my understanding is there's some funding available. there is some funding available. >> enough to complete the action? >> that i am not -- i would invite my colleagues. >> could you give us an answer for the record later for? >> certainly. absolutely. >> if you please. in the audience today i have constituents studying nuclear science at the university of michigan which is an institution i have the honor of representing. in its fiscal year 2013 budget request nrc's stated it is not requesting funding for the integrated university program which historically has been the sole provider of critical funding for student and faculty

development in the field of nuclear science. nrc states this reflects confidence that the nuclear industry will create incentives for students to enter nuclear related programs. i have constantly watched the development of our technical, scientific and engineering people and always found we are lagging a lot of other people around the world. two boys were metallurgical engineers. we found we are developing approximately 11 metallurgical engineers. the chinese are developing 11,000. do you believe there is a need to train nuclear engineers in this country and do you support the nrc's role in the bayou p

--i --iup? >> as a scientist myself i support education in science and engineering and i think the nrc commission supports it. >> if you withdraw from this, i must assume there will be no federal money for this kind of exercise and that we will not be training scientists, engineers that we will need in this area. are we going to produce these scientists, engineers and technicians that we need if we withdraw and if the nrc withdraws or are we not? >> i would leave some of the funding of science and engineering to you all.

>> my time is up. i have my serious doubts that we will be doing so. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chairman recognizes chairman emeritus mr. barton. there's only one and that is mr. dingell. >> to have the new chairman of the nrc. >> business of being chairman sounds good but is not much. >> if the gentleman would yield to my colleagues in the lower level it is very valuable. i tend to echo mr. dingell. take that and $0.50 and in texas you get a dr. pepper. it is good to be on the committee regardless what the title are. i notice the previous

commissioners were unbelievably polite but not unique. i would like to go into waters that are a little murkier. your predecessor was not known for his collegiality with his fellow commissioners. there were some fairly rigorous attempts to withhold information and manipulate decisionmaking. would you care to give us your view on how you plan to manage decisionmaking an information gathering and dissemination at the commission? >> i am committed to being as collegial as possible. i regard my fellow commissioners as mike year equals and they should have access to all the information i have access to.

i am committed to sharing with them written information from my office and directed my staff to be as open with their staff. >> you don't plan to use your position as chairman to withhold to shape the outcome of decisions. you plan to use the position to gather, share on an equal basis whatever information comes to you as chairman. is that a fair assessment? >> that is a fair assessment. that is the intention of the commission with five commissioners, we will not agree on every issue but that is not the intention of the commission. >> some of the members may have asked a storage question but

there is an obvious -- i don't want to say elephant in the room because that has political overtones but there's a big issue in not being addressed and that is permanent high-level waste storage. a majority of our committee feels it would be appropriate to move forward at yucca mountain. there are members of the energy committee that would prefer that we not. do you have a view you want to express how to assess what to do at yucca mountain. >> how to assess what to do? at this point i do not. i will wait to see what issues are presented to us as a commission. >> for the first time you are here.

i yield back. >> it is time to recognize mr. waxman five minutes. >> there are two nuclear power plants in california. one is diablo canyon and the other is the nuclear generating station in interstate of diego. i want to ask about that plant. in february of 2011 a new steam generator -- new steam generators were placed in service at that plant. this was a major capital expense that cause ratepayers' $670 million. this expense was large but the new equipment was supposed to last 40 years. on january 31st of this year, less than a year, one of the units steam generators started

making radioactive steam into the atmosphere and the reactor was shut down. the other unit was not operating at the time. six months later, most remained shut down. and determine the actual release of radiation into the environment was minimal in this case. is that right? >> that is correct. >> after the january shutdown, sending an inspection team. the report last weekend according to the nrc inspection team after a single year of operation, the steam generators have been warm down because excessive vibration was causing them to run against each other. last week's report found this problem was caused by faulty computer modeling in the design of the steam generators and by

manufacturing issues. the report stated, quote, the loss of steam generator to integrity is a serious safety issues that must be resolved prior to further our operation. douala you agree this is a serious safety issue? members -- does anybody disagree? if not i was still all of you agree. can you explain why the significant design in manufacturing flaws was not detected earlier? what oversight process was in place to assure the new steam generator would be safe and why didn't that identify the steam generators turned on? >> thanks for your question. i am still learning about all

the issues and technical details of the issues at that plant and i understand that this past march the nrc issued an action letter to acquire evaluation and repair of the steam generators prior to restart so the nrc will insure that the plant is safe before it does restart. as to why this was not detected, i will defer to my colleagues for much of that question but my understanding is that the nrc did evaluate the plan for the new steam generators but certainly i think we will be evaluating lessons learned from this entire experience. >> anybody else want to answer?

>> to add to chairman macfarlane's answer i would note the augmented inspection team report you referred to that was issued last week also identified ten items that were not resolved and will be the subject of additional follow-up. i would mention relevant to your questions-there are some items related to design issues, control of original design dimensions and adequacy of the pheromone hydraulic model you mentioned and three of the ten have direct relevance to the question you asked. >> why didn't the process identify these flaws before the generators were turned on? >> i didn't mention another of the ten which is the methodology itself, another one of the unresolved items for follow-up. >> you are asking the right questions. question i have asked the staff myself because i believe that if

you look at what the licensee did going forward with the replacement it followed the process the way it should have. everyone did what they were supposed to do. when you have an outcome that is not satisfactory you look at the process. i think we should look at the process and see if there is something we could improve. >> i hope all of you will look to see how we can prevent this from happening again at a nuclear reactor. relief the shutdown of this reactor went smoothly and equipment discovered before there was a major release of radiation into the atmosphere but it should not take a release of any amount of radiation into the environment before problems like this one are detected and ratepayers foot the $670 billion bill for new equipment at a nuclear reactor that equipment needs to be safe and last longer than one year. thank you. >> would you mind if we allow

mr. ostendorff to answer? >> i just had the chance to go there two days ago this past weekend and members of congress, senator boxer and senator feinstein to receive a briefing from the licensee about the exact issue and i agree with everything my colleagues have said and i believe there is a comprehensive, rigorous technical evaluation underway to look at these problems and i assure you everyone shares your concern for the safety aspects of this issue. >> we want to be sure it operates safely and find out wasn't operating safely after the fact and prevent problems. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska for five

minute. >> it has been unanimously noted here the previous chairman was a brilliant manipulator of rules and expose some weaknesses in the rules and processes in the nrc which we would like your feedback on how to properly repair. if there is a bill that comes through our committee on reforms of nrc rules i would ask each of you if you could within the next 30 days individually provide us your views on legislative changes you feel would be useful in this process. it is nice that we can ask you for that type of help before we felt like that would be not

appropriate. is great that there is a new atmosphere that allows open discussion about reforms in the nrc rules. one of the reforms i think is necessary is declaration of an emergency. again i think that was highlighted by the last chairman, that is uncertain and i would like mr. ostendorff because of your unique background and you, your opinion on the lack of clarity in management and leadership in the nrc during times of emergencies and how it can be improved. >> congressman terry, thank you for the question. i will get to the specific issue

after a brief comment. we have the energy reorganization act and the commission's internal commission procedures. we have a structure that guides how the commission does business. everyone here has experienced management roles and often those roles were executed as a function of the personality and character of the person who has the key positions and so i could say one level there are no changes required to any of our procedures despite the fact we have another chairman in place right now. should not be situation or personality individual specific and there might be some changes, legislative remedies. testified before congress, other

colleagues in the same situation. grave concerns on his lack of notification as to whether we are in this situation where he had taken emergency authority in fukushima. there is lack of clarity. more bright line as to whether or not those powers would be appropriate. >> i appreciate that. chairman macfarlane, do you think in times of emergency it is important or not important to have input of other colleagues, commissioners? >> the chairman has authority in an emergency and i would always follow the law -- >> is that a know? >> it is the office. if time allows the for emergency

powers were declared on would absolutely consoles with the commissioners to get their views and hear their concerns. >> i appreciate the answer and one more question regarding the voting process. there is a lack of transparency, and to the point that all discussions should be live on camera and on the record. certainly not how we do it in the house, collegial supreme court discussions. do you believe there need to be changes how the voting process is done in seven seconds? >> i need to learn more about

the history of voting practices to understand the options for the internal voting procedures and to maintain collegiality before any changes remain high would consult again for fellow commissioners. >> thank you. >> i thank my colleague and there's an issue of time when a vote is called and how long people can vote and there was a problem with that so i appreciate that. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. >> the biggest thing in my state is construction of the two nuclear plants in my district. i want to get an update on the status, the progress being made there. >> i was down there two weeks ago visiting the site and

there's a lot of activity. close to 2,000 workers on site and three and four. there has been -- had been a delay, issues on framing that goes down for the concrete. there is a clear path forward for the nuclear co. to move forward with that. the resident team is on site with three inspectors full time and other people -- status of construction and moving along well. >> what impresses me about a project this large is a relationship between owners, contractors and regulators. how would you describe relation between the actors bring in this off? >> to add in your congress but there is great openness and

communication between a consortium with westinghouse -- the contract in group for construction operation. those three entities on the consortium are communing way that -- communicating well in the facility. with any project lessons learned with improvements that can be made but from where i sit there are reasonable conditions. >> anything to add? >> i agree with commissioner ostendorff's comments. i visited the site myself some months ago and talked recently with leadership associated with the project and one answer i give your question is it is a learning process. this is the first time a nuclear power plant has been built using this process. >> in 30 years. >> 30 years the first plant to use this particular process and

we have learned a lot as we have gone forward the last several months. the relationship between the owners and contractors is evolve think as we speak. the relationship is evolving because of types of information that -- in the construction process. something we are learning has been a very educational process for everybody. >> i share your observation about the importance of this communication, the licensee and regulator. i heard that articulated from southern as well and a commitment although they realize communications need to get too high fidelity accountability of who has the authority to do what and working through issues for changes and there is a commitment they want to match

these things out and learn one time and have the process moving forward. >> what is your impression of the progress being made on this project? >> as far as i understand it is going well. the process is working as it should. the regulator and the licensee. i have not had an opportunity to visit the plant but i look forward to visiting. >> one last question. any concerns on the rise and that we need to address that would help us know about it? >> at this point no. >> that go for the rest of you? thank you so much. that goes my time. >> the chairman yields this time. we recognize mr. latta. >> thank you for coming in to

testify. it is different from the past testimony we had when you have all -- quite refreshing. if i could start with this question. during the hearing process for a license renewal application the atomic safety and licensing board and the commission must adjudicate various contention petitions and appeals. historically such decisions were reached in 100 days on average beginning in 2009. we got the charts right here as you can see. the average time from--remains at 185 days higher. research shows on several matters before the commission, the nrc's reliability state regulatory action should always be fully consistent with written regulation, should be promptly, thoroughly and decisively administered so the operation land planning processes, what steps the commission is taking to address the situation and how

promptly and decisively administrate these matters? >> i will take the 30,000 foot view. my understanding is staff is working as efficiently as possible but we all must recall that license renewals and licensing issues are a judith the tory matters and they take time before the commission especially when they are contested. we at the commission have no control over whether these license issues are contested. >> him viewing your charts, i share two observation is. when the time period began to be protracted i believe overlaps with periods where the commission only had three

serving members of-the third has pocket veto so the commission does not function as efficiently when it is down three members so although i can't prove that is part of the attribution, the other observation i would make is i have only been on the commission a little over four years. i have noticed participants and intervenors in the commission's proceedings have observed license renewals over time. they have become extremely skilled and informed in their participation and intervention in these proceedings so the numbers of appeals and commission petitions has increased in response to your question of what can we do i would make a personal pledge to look at agency resources for our office of commissioner appellates adjudication which is a group that as first in sins received and reviewed briefs on the appeal that develop opinions

in order for the commission. we could look at whether that office is adequate resources. .. >> that is a process we simply

have to work our way through. and we have had in recent years some issues, some plants that have had difficult renewals. >> thank you, congressman. i just agree with my colleagues. i'll add maybe just one statement, that is while there are these issues with extended renewal processes, typically in contested cases, our staffer think the commissioners at this table have vote inside a very timely manner when those have been presented to the commission. not everything comes to us directly. there's certain activities before the licensing board that we don't get involved in. but our voting record, i believe, has been responsible as far as acting in a telling manner when it gets to us. oftentimes that's delayed. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i see my time has expired. >> time has expired. chair now reck niegzed --

recognizes mrs. capps. >> congratulations on your job. appreciate your willingness to do so. before i get to my questions, as my colleague, mr. waxman, mentioned, i do represent a nuclear power plant in california and the surrounding communities. right now some of the best eyes and minds in our country are looking at the seismic issues at this plant, and i've work with the the utility there to pause the process until advanced size mix studies are finished and reviewed. working to update their seismic analyses. as a geologist, you surely recognize why this type of analysis is very important. first and foremost, about safety. but it also impacts affordability and reliable generation as well.

and i just want your commitment to work with us and make sure these studies are complete inside a timely manner. completed in a timely manner. >> absolutely. >> thank you. and now i want to turn to fukushima. unstable when a nuclear power plant loses the power needed to cool them. the spent fuel rods continue to pose serious problems and many concerns as japan attempts to stabilize and careen up the site -- clean up the site. many spent fuel pools in the united states are even more densely packed. chairman macfarlane, what are the safety concerns associated with densely-packed spent fuel pools in. >> this is an issue, and one of the fukushima activities that the nrc will be looking at. so i assure you this issue will get attention.

and it is, i believe, also getting attention from a national academy of sciences study as well. >> exactly. the alternative is dry cast storage. in 2006 the national academy of science issued a report showing moving spent fuel from pools to dry above ground casks reduces the likely hood and potential impact of a radioactive release from spent fuel. do you believe dry -- do dry casks rely on external power sources to cool the stored fuel? >> no. they are pass you havely cooled. >> okay. as we all know, the disaster in talk about seem ma -- talk about seem ma lost all power. finish. >> it's my understanding that the spent fuel casks, the dry

casks at fukushima withstood both the earthquake and tsunami very well, and we have additional information from this country because there were dry casks at the north anna facility in virginia during last summer's mineral virginia earthquake, and those dry casks also performed very well. i invite my colleagues to add anything if they would like. >> would just add one comment, and that is that while there certainly has been a lot of concern and discussion about the smithfield pools at the fukushima site, the fact is they actually survived the event reasonably well. and today we believe from all the information we receive from our japanese colleagues are safe right now. and while we encourage them to move that spent fuel out of those pools as quickly as possible, it does demonstrate how rigorous these buildings and

structures are. it does give some confidence that these pools are safe and don't provide, don't present a threat to the public. >> and, of course, this is a topic that's going to take a lot of continued study, long-term study, and i don't have to ask, i hope i can assume that there's a tremendous interest on your part in doing that given the benefits of dry cax. it would seem, and i'd ask for a confirmation from you or some comments that accelerating transfer of spent fuel from pools to casks lowers the risks pose by pools. and then to sum up in a few seconds your thoughts on this particular area which i wish to explore with you further. >> sure. and i would be happy to explore this in the future with you at greater length. but as i said, certainly, the nuclear regulatory commission is

looking at this specific issue, and we'll gather more information about this specific issue. >> thank you very much. >> gentle lady's time has expired. now welcome mr. mckinley for fife minutes -- five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to the committee as a whole, i think we had earlier there was some discussion about congressman barton bringing up the subject of the yucca mountain. there was some discussion about it. i'm just curious, i've been reading about yucca mountain since the '80s. i'm just one of two engineers in congress. '82 is when the act was put into effect, and '87 was when yucca mountain was designated to be the repository. twenty-five years later, we're

still talking about it? is that what i'm hearing from the panel, we're not sure what we're going to do with that? >> it's not the nrc's job to make policy. we are a regulator. but given that and given my past experience as a commissioner on the blue ribbon commission, i will say, yes, we are -- there's still discussion about yucca mountain. and let me just say as a scientist, you're an engineer, and maybe an engineer -- you work faster than science, but science often works very slowly. >> but i think we work faster than 25 years. how much money has been spent on yucca mountain. what have we invest inside that over these 25 years? >> this, again, is an issue that is not under the control or purview of the nuclear regulatory commission, but i believe if you are looking just at what has been spent on ca

mountain -- yucca mountain spris and not on the entire waste disposal program, you are looking at a figure between seven and eight billion dollars. >> i'm sorry? >> between seven and eight billion dollars. >> if the gentleman would yield. i think you can make some claims for 15 billion. and what the nrc needs to do is finish the scientific study. a lot of the yucca mountain issue is doe and money spent in that venue. >> we have the permit? >> the nrc is tasked to, we hope eventually, finish the scientific study, and then that would then be the final aspect of proving the viability. for yucca. they won't manage the site. they're not going to be in power to do that. >> i'm just trying to get a better handle of it up close. this glacial pace that we move around here is pretty incredible to think that 25 years later we

still don't have a place to -- so my question would be from you all, your perspective, given there are probably two courses of action dealing with spent fuel rods, they're either going to go into a geological formation below the ground someplace, or we're going to recycle them as they do in france. so can you tell me which is the more likely direct you see nuclear fuel rods going in this country? >> well, again, the nrc doesn't set that policy for the u.s. the nrc regulates the reactors and materials -- >> i understand you don't, but for your opinion. you are the regulatory group on nuclear power. i'm just trying -- where do you think we're going as a nation after 25 years if we can't decide it's going to be yucca mountain or washington, are we

going to go to recycling? which direction do you think we should go as a nation? >> no matter you go and direct disposal of spent fuel or you recycle as france does, you will need a final repository. and france itself has, is working now on its final site selection for a deep geologic repository. >> do you see us, as a nation, do you see us recycling ever? >> i think it's largely an economic and policy question. >> okay. the -- can i don't think it comes under your purview, but i believe under the act in '82 that they set up that the consumers using nuclear power would be assessed charges for the disposal of -- >> yes. the nuclear waste plant, yes. >> right.

how's that -- who manages -- can where's that money going? >> you manage it. congress manages the money. the nuclear waste fund. and you appropriate it. >> i'm trying to understand here. so we can have that turned back over to the consumer? or is it being collected and saved? >> it's being collected and saved into the nuclear waste fund, and consumers -- sorry, it's the rate payers who pay into this fund. >> gentleman's time's expired. >> time's expired, sorry. thank you. >> before i go to the gentle lady from florida, i'd ask unanimous consent from my colleague for one minute. >> with i think we need to look at both long-term storage, but we also need to look at recycling. but we have to have interim storage. and the success in southern countries, france doesn't have a

long-term storage solution either. and i know mr. murphy and i were there a while back, and they at least have the potential for long-term storage. >> gentleman's time has expired. chair recognizes ms. castor for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all very much for being here this morning. dr. macfarlane, in your testimony you reference that there are currently two units in extended shutdowns, and one of those is the crystal river unit three in florida. crystal river remains in extended shutdown while its owner evaluates the repair options. for separation in the concrete wall of the containment building. in 2009 you all are aware they were conducting some repairs there, and during that time they discovered an unexpected crack, separation in the concrete wall. and i guess the technical term

is delamination. you all know more about that than i do. they informed the nrc, nrc sent an inspection team, you all followed up with a special inspection team. you've had public meetings. you've issued a special inspection report, came down for another public meeting. in june of last year progress energy, the owner then, stated their intent that they intended to repair crystal river, and they were proceeding with engineering and construction plans dealing with insurance issues and had stated an intent to return the plant to service in 2014. since that time just here earlier in the month progress energy merged with duke energy.

and reports following that merger appear to make the future of the crystal river unit three plant a little more uncertain. it appears that the nrc's position has been that crystal river can be repaired safely. is that correct in your opinions, and have any of you traveled to the site? >> well, as you might suspect i haven't had the opportunity to travel to crystal river yet, but i intend to learn more about the situation at crystal river, and i'll ask my colleagues to comment. >> i had the opportunity to visit crystal river, i think it's probably been about two months ago, and i did inspect the repair that work that is underway. the nrc is watching very closely. the repair work that is underway is complex in many ways. some of it's actually quite

unique. but from everything that, um, i was able to learn during my visit and subsequent conversations, um, it is clearly reparable. it is clearly something that the licensee knows how to complete. um, i think that the kinds of discussions you're referring to are business decisions really. how long are they willing to wait, how much will it cost them? but from a regulatory standpoint, from a technical standpoint, it seems quite reparable, but whether it's the decision they plan to make or not, we'll wait and see. >> any other comments? >> i visited crystal river maybe two years ago. my understanding it's not as up-to-date as consistent with what i've heard generally. >> is it the nrc's rule to examine the cost, do a cost benefit analysis moving forward or not? >> no, that would not be an appropriate role for us.

>> okay. if the nuclear reactor is repaired, is it subject to all of the updated nrc safety requirements? >> yes. >> including ones -- is that the same as if it were going for a new license? their license expires in 2016. is that the same analysis? and same requirements? >> same requirements for -- >> if they repair, is that consistent -- would nrc be asking for the same updated safety requirements when they go for a licensed renewal? their license expires -- the license expires here in 2016. >> my understanding is not necessarily, but i'll -- >> i think as a general matter that all of our plants operate under the same safety standards. so we don't differentiate between a plant that's operating under its original license

versus a plant that's operating under its renewed license or a plant that's been repaired. >> are you aware that the duke energy board of directors conducted an independent analysis of the crystal river plant and has the nrc, has anyone received any report or the details of that independent analysis? conducted here over the last, last few months? >> i'm not aware of that, and i'm not aware that the agency has received any such report. >> gentle lady's time's expired. i do appreciate my colleagues really getting their questions done, and we've got a lot of members who are still obviously here here to get questions done. now recognize mr. gardner for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for your time today, and welcome, ms. macfarlane, to the committee. in a previous question there was a question about emergency powers that were taken up by the previous chairman of the nrc.

any of those powers left, residual powers? they have all been -- business as usual has been restored, returned? >> it's my understanding. >> okay, thank you. and a couple questions about the office of public affairs. i think they're very important to some of the interactions that we have had as this committee with the nrc. if you take a look at the reorganization plan of 1980 that provided the office of public affairs reports directly to the chairman to assist the chairman as the principle spokesman for the agency. when this committee began its investigation into governance, we identified at the nrc we identified some of the key questions about the role of the office of public affairs and wanted to just talk and read a little bit about some of the work we've seen coming out of the public affairs. the task force recommendations as prepared by the director of the office of public affairs, and i quote: in this speech the chairman can lay out his thought

for how to proceed what he sees as his priorities, the need to move with dispatch, etc. this will be a subtle nudge to others to get onboard or appear to be foot dragging. the speech appears to be, a, newsworthy, and, b, collegial but firm to set expectations which if not met he can point to evidence of fill in the blank criticism. that statement was made, of course, in december to the washington post editorial page. here's another statement from the office of public affairs, and i quote: as you may have noticed, our chairman is in a shooting match with his four colleagues on the commission. a very public and bitter dispute, end quote. the office director drafted a statement that read, quote: i was not the choice of the nuclear industry to sit on the commission, let alone be chairman. time after time on critical safety questions my vote has been the lone tally cast in the interest of strong safety

requirements and accountability. others have sought a different level of safety. and i guess i would ask to you, madam commissioner and chairman, excuse me, and to the other commissioners, do you believe it is appropriate to devise press strategies to influence commissioners' votes or to impugn commissioners' dedication to public safety? >> thanks for your question. i, as you said, my understanding is that the office of public affairs at the nrc assists the chairman in carrying out his or her responsibilities as principle spokesperson for the nrc. therefore, the director of public affairs and the office of public affairs works at the direction of the chairman. and all i can point out is now there is a new chairman. and in my two weeks there, i have been comfortable working with the office of public affairs. >> and so the question of do you believe it's appropriate for public affairs to devise press strategies to influence

commissioners' votes, you would disagree with that strategy? >> as far as i understand your question, yes. >> so you would not be using the office of public affairs to try to influence other commissioners? >> i have absolutely no intention of doing that. other commissioners care to comment? >> >> i would note, congress planet that a member of the -- congressman, where statutory language could be perhaps clarified about the appropriate uses of perhaps an office such as public affairs. and so i would note that the legislative history of this matter indicates that although the chairman is the principle spokesman, he or she is to be bound in those communications by the overall policy and guidance of the commission as a whole. so i didn't want respond be ferrell in to -- respond earlie. but there are exposed areas where there was disagreements

amongst members of the commission about what these statutory provisions meant. so in my commitment toll provide any proposals -- to provide any proposals, i think it was appropriate to strengthen the chairman's role, b but i do think we have disputed each other over what some of the words mean. i think it could further the collegial functioning of the commission in the future. >> and that's exactly right. and so going back, i'm running short on time here, just to make sure that we're clear on what this office of public affairs can and shouldn't be used for to the chairman, is it appropriate for the chairman to use the public affairs office to promote personal views as a commissioner? direct that to you. >> to promote personal views? >> yes. >> when no, the chairman -- >> personal policy views, excuse me. >> the chairman is representing the organization, so personal views should not be part of this. >> okay. and you made the comments on the

collegial structure. i guess i would just ask for your commitment, madam chairman, to refrain. will you commit to refrain from these tactics that have been used in the past? >> as far as i understand them, yes, i commit. >> as far as you understand them. >> as far as i understand what happened in the past. i was not part of the commission in the past, and i'm trying to understand what has happened with the office -- >> so you won't be using the public affairs committee -- i'm out of time. >> gentleman's time has e expired. recognize mr. engel for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome k everybody. dr. macfarlane, congratulations. i want to talk to you about indian point in new york city suburbs. it's one of the most serious issues facing new york. indian point is located, obviously, by our nation's largest metropolitan area, it has an operational history that has been plagued by irresponsible acts, unplanned

shutdowns, lacking spent fuel pools and inadequate emergency response systems. one of the planes hijacked on september 11th flew over indian point on its way to the world trade center. we've learned that the plant is located near two seismic faults. and there simply isn't enough roads to allow for a real evacuation in the event of an accident or attack. neither of the county executives in both westchester which i represent and rockland county which i also represent, both county executives -- one republican, one democratic -- have refused to certify the evacuation plans for indian point because they know they're ridiculous. indian point's two active reactors are set to retire in 2013 and 2015 unless their application for relicensing are approved, and there's always within -- been a cozy

relationship between the nrc and the industry which is a serious and realistic evaluation of the safety of indian point. i've toured it, i've taken -- i've been there with your predecessor, dr. macfarlane, and i'm interested in meeting with you to discuss it in greater detail and perhaps tour with me. would you with willing to arrange a time to meet with me and talk? >> would i be willing to do that in the future? absolutely, i would be willing to talk with you about it and visit it with you. >> thank you. i am not opposed to nuclear power, i never issued a peep about indian point until september 11th when it became clear to many of us that this was a safety hazard. so thank you. i want to talk about decommissioning. it's an expensive process. "the new york times" report in march of this year that the operators of 20 of the nation's aging nuclear reactors including some whose licenses expire soon

have not saved nearly enough money for prompt and proper dismantling, and the owners of the indian point plant just 24 miles north of new york city and is at least $500 million short of the $1.5 billion estimated cost of dismantling reactors two and three. they insist the shortfall won't be a problem because they expect indian point to be relianced for another 20 years, and they expect interest to accrue to sufficient levels. but the fact is that 12 reactors across the country have been retired in the last three decades all on short notice because of a design or safety flaw that the economics did not justify fixing. the shortfall in these retirement accounts raises the possibility that new york could be sitting on sleeping reactors for decades. so, dr. macfarlane, what do you envision happening if one of the nation's 20 underfunded

reactors needed to be decommissioned? >> well, i will note that we have, the u.s. has decommissioned a number of reactors successfully, so it can happen, there can be a positive outcome. as far as how to handle the she scenario that you describe, um, i think we will probably have to visit it if it happens. >> okay. i want to finally talk about reliance criteria because it's not subject to the same stringent criteria used in an application for new power plants for initial construction. so let me ask you this, doctor, would you support using the same criteria for relicensing an existing plant as we use to license new plants? the brand new plants, it's, um -- my understanding that

there's, that we have a well-established license renewal program. of course, that doesn't substitute for day-to-day regulatory oversight that's required of the operating plants. um, there is a lengthy public hearing process that engages a variety of stakeholders in relicensing, and so all of this information is publicly available, and i commit to insuring that these reactors operate safely. >> thank you. if i may just take about five more seconds, mr. chairman, i just want to say that information wasn't available when the plant was originally licensed. in my estimation should that not be considered in reliancing? >> i think it depends on the particular situation. >> okay, thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank my colleague. gentleman's time's expired. chair now recognizes the

gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman for the recognition. and i thank our witnesses for staying with us through this lengthy hearing today, but it is important. we hear a lot, you all mentioned it in your opening statements, about the collegiality and the importance of that. of course, the average american doesn't know what the nrc is and probably doesn't know, would not be able to name the commissioners. but for the average american, why should they care about collegiality on the board? aren't you just supposed to do your jobs anyway? >> certainly, we are supposed to do our jobs anyway. i think we do them better, and we do gain the trust of the american people when they do realize there is an nrc out there. we gain a stronger sense of trust when we do operate collegially. i think it's very important that we operate collegially just to make the process and all the decisions that we take work efficiently. >> i don't disagree with that,

but, in fact, should not people be able to depend on your commission even in the absence of collegiality? >> yes, absolutely. and i think that the commission did operate and handle all the issues that came before it no matter what the situation. >> well, it did seem that at times there were whispers, there were rumors that, you know, legitimate differences in policy were interpreted as some of the commissioners being characterized as anti-safety for the three commissioners who set the historical precedent. did that ever come up with your discussions amongst yourselves? >> congressman, i disagree with the characterizations that some of the recent issues on the commission had to do with disagreeing votes on policy matters. i believe over the course of my tenure, i served a in urge of -- a number of members on the commission. i've probably disagreed with

everybody. i think the dysfunction on the commission was much more substantive than a policy agreement. it had to do with impeding the flow of information and other very fundamental issues that i felt obstructed the ability for this commission to operate the way congress intended. >> so legitimate policy differences really should not be interpreted as anti-safety, but you're saying there was actual impediment of information flow that kept you from doing your job whether there was a policy difference or not, you were not able to do your job as far as public health and safety was concerned? >> that's correct. >> and i guess i am getting the impression this morning that that situation has resolved. >> i think we're off to a very, very productive beginning. >> so the american public to the extent that they're watching this hearing this morning can take some comfort in the fact that whereas public health and

safety may not have been at the forefront in the past, it will be going forward? >> it, i think all of us kept public health and safety forefront, and as chairman macfarlane indicated, there was an impressive amount of agency work that was conducted. however, i would hope that some would view there's a great unanimity here, and there's an optimism about moving forward. >> um, mr. ostendorff, let me ask you a question because you brought up the observation that the series of of events in japan of march 2011 would be unlikely to occur in this country. i suspect that the month before the earthquake that same statement could have been made about japan, could it not? >> congressman, i think the way i'd respond to that is there are significant regulatory differences and some cultural differences between the united states and japan as it effects

the nuclear industry. as other members of the committee have noted, the japanese diet report that came out just last week highlighted two substantive differences between the united states' regulatory framework and that in japan. one dealing with the actions we took in this country after the attacks of 9/11 to require additional mitigating strategies called b5b under our rules to deal with fires, explosions and flooding, and the second to deal with blackouts and the loss of all power. i think those are two substantive differences between our frameworks that are significant factors from the comparison of the two countries. >> let me just ask you, and i may have to submit this for the record because of time, but the month before the japanese earthquake, chairman shimkus took several of us out to yucca mountain. after the japanese earthquake, one of the big problems was the loss of the spent fuel rods that were in the cooling pools and the loss of electricity. it seemed that just underscored the importance of getting

whatever the long-term storage solution is, and i believe yucca mountain is still viable, but getting that done and getting those spent fuel rods out of those pools. tough any thoughts on that? >> -- do you have any thoughts on that? >> well, as i think others at this table have mentioned earlier, the office of research at nrc is working on a study, it's almost finished on the spent fuel pool risk associated with keeping fuel in the pool as contrasted to take them out of the pool and putting them into dry cask where they're air cooled. there's lots of other factors associated with accelerated campaign risks, of taking those out in an expedited manner, and i think overall our of staff's assessment to date has been those risks are very, very low. but it's still something we're looking at as part of our reactions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman's time has expired. now recognize the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, for five minutes. >> thank you, very much.

appreciate the chairman -- commissioners coming before us. we've had almost a year and a half to receive vast amounts of data, a lot's been published about the actions being taken by the global industry. with the benefit of the information that we have, have any of your initial conclusions -- for those of you -- we've got a little construction going on here. >> would the gentleman suspend for a little? committee staff, someone needs to get them to stop. gentleman may proceed. >> not sure if that's a shovel-ready project. i guess we'll just have to bear with it. but based on the data that we have, have any of you maybe had different reaction today than what the initial assessments were back a year and a half ago or less than a year and a half ago about the cause and the

priority of the regulatory actions associated with fukushima? if we could just start with mr. ostendorff and go down. >> thank you, congressman. i think, you know, right after the fukushima event, the commission made a decision that we did not need to shut down nuclear power plants in this country. we felt there was no eminent risk. i believe that finding is still relevant and appropriate today. i think at a big picture level, the intervening months have indicated that we're on a good track and are on a good track to take an approach to what actions to take, and i think the emphasis on tier i activities, mitigating strategies, looking at external hazards is appropriate, and i think that is echoed and has been reinforred over -- reinforced over the last 16, 17 months. >> mr. magwood? >> i think over the last year we've had ample opportunity to talk to our international colleagues about their response

to the fukushima events, and as i've talked with regulators from around the world, i've discovered a great deal of commonality between what we're doing and the thoughts that they're having. we, actually, are more advanced in many of our efforts than they are, so that gives us some reassurance. and i think that the more we know about how things actually unfold inside japan after the last several years, we see that the japanese have much more to learn from fukushima than we did. and they're trying to absorb those lessons themselves, and a lot of those are cultural issues that are very difficult to change. so as the last year and a half has gone by, i've actually grown in confidence that the steps we've taken are the appropriate steps. >> i agree with my colleagues. >> if y'all can i don't know if you've got a top five or just some top safety changes that you think both the nrc and the

industry have taken, what are some of the top things to improve safety that you've seen or that you think should be done that haven't been done based on the information we know now? >> let me take the first crack at that. first, let me say i do think that infrastructure that we had and the approaches we had before fukushima were already strong. i don't think that they were lacking. but i do think that one thing i would point to is, um, a greater acceptance, um, of the need to be able to respond to beyond basis events. and that's not one specific change, it's more of a philosophical change i think that we're all dealing with. the idea that you don't simply, that you prepare for beyond the worst case scenario, you provide equipment, you provide training, you do whatever you can to be ready to respond in case there's a large earthquake, flood or storm. and that's a philosophical change that the agency's adopting.

>> all right, thanks. if you look at situations where the nrc comes out with new requirements to hinder implementation of other recent nrc requirements, when you, when you look at the nrc's efficiency principle which states regulatory activities should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction they achieve, i think, commissioner magwood, you had written it does not as a general matter to -- when a more thoughtful process might achieve the agency's safety goals without straining resources. do you have a view on whether staff industry concerns on multiple new requirements have merit? >> i think there is some merit. but i think it's very important to understand why there's merit. and i think the reason it's important is to make sure that -- and i think you and a previous member put it well, that you are not distracted by

issues of low safety significance and miss something that is much more important. it's more important to focus on priority safety effects and make sure you deal with those early. and i do think that we ought to look for more ways of addressing that in our process to make sure that we aren't focusing too much on the small things and missing the big things. >> all right. i'm out of time. i appreciate it. yield back. >> gentleman's time's expired. chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. like to welcome you, chairman macfarlane, and congratulate you on your recent confirmation. after the fukushima meltdowns, a task force was create today recommend safety upgrades for american nuclear reactors. that task force was made up of nrc officials who together had more than 15 years of nuke --

135 years of nuclear regulatory expertise. it included 12 recommendations which ranged from requirements to upgrade seismic and flood protections against the long power outages that were the ultimate cause of the japanese meltdown. they also concluded that each and every one of the recommendations were necessary for the adequate protection of nuclear power plants and that they should be mandatory for each nuclear reactor. mandatory. the chairman immediately announced his support for all of the nrc staff's recommendations. regrettably, some of his fellow nrc commissioners did not do likewise and initially insisted that other nrc staff review the task force report before the commission voted on any of the recommendations. but this second staff review reached the same conclusions as the first one. they concluded that all recommendations should be made

mandatory. despite this, the commission has not voted to endorse its top staff's reviews and, thus, it is possible that some of the fukushima safety upgrades will never be made mandatory for all nuclear power plants. chairman macfarlane, do you support the conclusion of the nrc's top safety experts that all of the post-fukushima safety recommendations are necessary for the adequate protection of nuclear power plants? >> thanks for that question. um, as chairman i am strongly committed to protecting the public health and safety, and i'm strongly committed to shepherding the fukushima task force recommendations through. >> do you believe that they should be mandatory? >> i think that i need to understand more about especially the tier ii and tier iii activities. >> would it be a good idea or

outcome if it turned out that the nuclear industry argued its way out of adopting some of the recommendations to top experts recommended on the grounds that it would be expensive or inconvenient? >> certainly, that would not be a good outcome. >> well, when the nrc staff reviewed the task force report, it identified several safety measures that could be implemented quickly, and i'm pleased that the commissioner has moved forward on these. the staff stated that the fact that they had identified some recommendations that could be adopted, quote, should not be interpreted as a lack of support for the other task force recommendations. but recently, the nuclear energy institute started to discourage the nrc from moving forward on the rest of the recommendations saying that the recommendations that were adopted would accomplish, quote, as much as 90 % of the safety benefit from all recommendations and that, quote: at in this time the safety benefits derived from the rest of the recommendations are unclear. so i'd like you to respond to

this, chairman macfarlane. do you agree that the commission should delay or stop the consideration of the rest to have safety recommendations that the nrc's fukushima task force made? >> absolutely not. >> absolutely not. and i agree with you. and i know that there are other commissioners who disagree with that point of view, and i would just like to say that you have a very difficult job ahead of you, madam chair, and you need to keep in mind that your duty is not to went a popularity contest at the nrc with commissioners who disagree with this safety agenda. but you just lead it to and in an absolutely critical time when it is faced with a daunting task of responding to the lessons of the fukushima nuclear meltdowns in a way that insures that such a thing never happens in the united states. you are charged with the task of insuring the safety of our existing nuclear plants, of licensing any new ones and of responding to what future course

our nation takes with respect to the seemingly intractable issues of how to dispose of all of the toxic, high-level nuclear waste. and while i would hope that all would be sweetness and light over at the nuclear regulatory commission, i seriously doubt that that will be the case. so don't be afraid to stick up for your guns and do what is right for the american people even if that puts you on the losing side of a vote. for in the end, madam chair, your term as chairman will be judged on whether you have successfully completed the task of fully implementing the nrc task force recommendation on fukushima, on insuring that there is safety in the disposal of nuclear waste. and that will be your legacy. notwithstanding the fact that there are going to be ore members of the -- other member of the commission who disagree with that agenta. >> gentleman's time has expired. now recognize mr. walden for

five minutes. >> i thank the chairman, and i welcome the new chairwoman to the commission, we appreciate you and your colleagues and the important role you play in providing safety and security for the nation's facilities. as my colleagues up and down the aisle and across the aisle, we all believe that's an essential part of your job both moving forward with nuclear energy development, but making sure that we're safe along the way. i'd like to ask the other commissioners since you weren't given a chance to respond to my colleague's question regarding the task force recommendations your views on on the those recommendations and whether you believe they should just be automatically adopted or not or why they're not. and maybe we can start, just go from left to right since the chairwoman had a chance to respond. >> thank you for the question, congressman. upon receipt of those recommendations from the task force, i voted -- as did a commission majority -- to take that output of that small group, albeit very experienced as

congressman markey mentioned, they were just a small group of individuals, and i voted to subject those recommendations to the opportunity for public outreach, for comment, for a wide diversity of stakeholders to have an opportunity to comment on that. and then for the nrc staff to synthesize all of that input and prioritize and propose to the commission a plan for moving forward on those recommendations. sitting here today i continue to believe that was a fulsome and appropriate way to -- >> so there had not been a transparent or public process prior to that? >> there had not been an opportunity to ventilate or to have public comment on those relations. >> is that a normal process at an independent agency? >> i think that it is not inappropriate for commissioners to have as a starting point a small, experienced group provide some advice, and it was comprised solely of nrc staff. but i do think that it was important to take that very timely and, i think, informed output but subject it to a much

broader kind of opportunity for public comment. >> appreciate that. mr. magwood? would you care to comment? >> yes. i think commission ervin nick key said it very well. give us input as to their thoughts about recommendations. and we also were very -- we also because we wereearning as we went during that process, we individual commissioners actually did make, um, additions. not subtractions, but additions -- >> is that right? >> absolutely. there were several instances with where our colleague put in new items, i put in new items, others did as well. >> additional safeguard items? >> additional items for study that i believe will eventually be started.

and higher than the staff i think had originally anticipated. the commission took a very active role in this, and i think a very positive, very beneficial role, and i'm very proud of what we did. >> so, commissioner ostendorff, explain to me the station blackout role and why that was an important addition from your perspective. >> yes, sir. the station blackout rule or evaluation really refers to when you have a loss of all alternating ac power on site -- >> much like what happened at talk about she fukushima. >> yes. it's needed to drive centrifugal points to remove heat and decay from a core. so the ability of a plant to have robust, redun tax power sources including emergency diesel generators, portable generators, dc batteries, the ability to recharge those batteries, all those things are part of the calculus of how we can have a more robust opportunity to provide this

required removal capability. >> and was it your view that the task force recommendations didn't go far enough along those lines? >> well, i think the task force did a tremendous job given the fact they had 90 days or less to do what they did. but i'll note that the task force recommendations themselves were not aexeand by -- accompanied by a regulatory technical analysis. and before we go out as a regulator and issue orders or require things to be changed, it's incumbent upon us to have a regulatory technical analysis. >> right. >> so that's part of the thing that commissioner somebody svinicki, commissioner agowood and i have been adamant about. >> right. >> i would tell you as commissioner magwood said, there are areas that have been added in. commissioner magwood added issues on spent fuel instrumentation, so the mix before the commission today broader than that was presented in july of 2011.

>> i appreciate that, and i know i'm just out of time here, but i appreciate the fact you're doing a public, transparent process so that more than just a handful of inside staffers decide what's going to be mandatory across the country. it's something i've driven as chairman of the communications and technology subcommittee at the fcc. i don't think they do enough of the appropriate sort of public, transparent process where everybody has a chance to weigh in. after all, it is the public's business. in your case, the public safety. and i think it's important to get it right. so thank you, mr. chairman, for your indulgence (i thank my colleague. chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you for having this hearing. i have to tell you all, those that were here the last time you all were before us, know that i was very concerned that the process was completely dysfunctional. i feel much better today. that being said, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield the time remaining to you for whichever questions you'd like to ask. >> and i thank my friend and

colleague. chairman macfarlane, when nominated to become a commissioner, chairman whereas coe recused himself on matters relating to yucca mountain. in 2009 when asked by a writer for the mit technological review is it -- yucca mountain -- really unsuitable, and you answered, yes. in your role you must be fair and objective in adjudicating issues that come before the commission. your public criticism leads us to question your objectivity on the manner. will you recuse yourself on matters relating to yucca mountain just as chairman cross coe did? >> like any commissioner, i would examine each and every matter before me on the legal specifics at the time and take appropriate action which could include possible recusal. but at this point i believe it's inappropriate to commit to a genre causal on this matter without a specific commission action in front of me to evaluate with counsel input. >> you've been well prepared,

thank you. [laughter] the d.c. circuit court is considering whether the nrc is bound to review the application. in march secretary chu committed to honor that court's decision. will you also commit? >> absolutely. >> what do you see as the federal government's proper role in encouraging the use of alternative fuel in vehicles if. >> alternative fuel in vehicles? >> yeah -- i have no idea why this is on there. [laughter] >> because the nrc doesn't do that. >> well, when we talk about electric vehicles, there could be some debate on electricity generation. to each of the serving commissioners, um, you know, we've been -- as a hearing, it's been a very good hearing. now, that's mr. markey to stop me on my final -- see? i called him out.

so i think the hearing's been very, very good, and we've got one more colleague back to ask questions. but there is some issues that have been raised, and i want the give commissioner svinicki, commissioner magwood and commissioner ostendorff an opportunity the -- because some of your votes have been questioned by people who say -- [inaudible] safety. so can each one of you give us an example of a vote that has been misconstrued and explain why your vote was protective of public safety? commissioner svinicki? >> i would begin with the matter we were just discussing which is the commissioners ooh very important actions on the fukushima task force recommendations. i'm very proud of what the commission majority put in place. i think that we have shown a real commitment to safety, to moving forward in a way that has technical discipline and rigor, but at the same time is moving forward very seriously with these recommendations, and i

think that the entire handling of the task force report has been extremely misconstrued. >> commissioner magwood? >> i think i'm forced to point to the same example. there's been this debate ant the basis of the -- the regulatory basis for our decision as to whether they should be under what we call adequate protection or administrative exemption. and in some cases one of us or the other may have advocated administrative exemption. and in my case it wasn't because i thought that these issues weren't important, it was simply as commissioner ostendorff pointed out earlier, i thought we needed to have a much more rigorous, technical basis to evaluate these issues. i wanted them to go forward but still preserve the opportunity to do the analysis so they provide a very strong framework for us to go forward. so operationally to mean the same thing, but it gives you a stronger basis to go forward,

and that's what i was looking for. >> thank you. commissioner ostendorff? >> thank you for the question. i think my two colleagues have just provided very cogent examples which i agree with. i will just state one overall comment, that i think the actions that the current commissioners have taken who have been here for the fukushima issues have been very responsible, that i think in large part it gets left out of the public press commentary that we are by and large following the recommendations of our close to 4,000-person staff. bill's here in the row behind us, he and his team under steering committee have been prioritizing these relations, and i think we have been very thoughtful in considering the recommendations. also realize that not all of these issues are the same safety significance. i think to date we've act inside that way. >> and i thank you. and i know a lot of this was

post-fukushima, but there's also examples of other issues that you could probably defend your vote on on public safety. so with that, i appreciate -- chair now recognizes the vice chairman of the committee, mr. murphy, for five minutes. >> don't you want to say -- >> i said be navy. that's why you're so late. >> admiral, i want to start by asking you, you've been involved with issues with the navy nuclear for a while. you're aware of that. have we ever had any major problems with nuclear energy systems in the navy in it history? >> i would say as far as major problems, no, sir. >> that's important for the record. >> how many years has it been? >> sir, 26 years in active duty. >> but the navy's been around -- >> since the uss nautilus back in 1954, i believe, we've had nuclear-powered submarines and carriers. >> good track record, thank you.

madam chairman, i appreciate your comments about collegiality. not only -- it hasn't been said before, and if it has, i'll repeat it -- up to this point, well, up to a point a few months ago has had a highly respected position, and i believe that collegiality's extremely important with congress and with the american people, so i appreciate your motivation to turn this in a different direction. i just wanted to get a couple of things on record. have you been to a nuclear power plant? >> have i been to a nuclear power plant? yes. >> okay. and have you seen, been to a fuel manufacturing facility where they make nuclear fuel and assemble it in the assembly rods? >> yes, i have, actual. >> okay, good. where was that? >> it was of in europe. >> where? just curious. >> i think it was belgium. >> thank you, ma'am. did you have a chance to see what they do in france? >> yes, i have. >> have you been over to sweden where they have nuclear

storage -- >> yes, i have. >> in that massive cave? >> yes. >> pretty incredible facility. safe? >> yes. >> i imagine you took particular interest as a geologist noting the entire country of sweden is in one big block of granite. [laughter] >> well, it's a little more complicated than that. >> i understand. it's an impressive facility. have you been to yucca mountain? >> yes, many times. >> have been there. and with regard to that one of the concerns on record that you have stated before you took on this position with the committee that you are not in favor of yucca mountain, and i believe you're not in favor of reprocessing, do i have those positions correct? >> i think you're wrong on them. on the yucca mountain position, i have never said that i am not in favor of yucca mountain. in fact, i can read to you -- >> i'd love to hear that, thank you. >> -- from the book that i co-edited on certainty underground, and a direct quote is this book is not a judgment on the suitability of -- >> i'm sorry, what was the title of the week?

>> uncertainty underground. >> sounds like a comment to me. >> it's a comment, yes. it's a comment about uncertainty that exists. but it's a technical uncertainty. anyway, the quote is this book is not a judgment on the suitability of yucca mountain as a we -- repository, we leave that judgment to the reader. >> i understand. i'm looking forward to reading the book. your predecessor held a negative view of nuclear energy. in a speech he indicated that 20 years from now the nuclear industry is just as likely to, quote: be dominated by a process of continue -- [inaudible] what's your view on that? >> on the future of the nuclear industry? i think it depends on many, many factors. >> can you -- >> the economics, certainly the economy right now -- >> and policy? >> policy, absolutely. >> policy at the nrc? >> the policy at nrc to a smaller degree, i would imagine. >> all right.

um, please share your opinion regarding the benefits and transparency of the notation voting process of the members. >> um, i, as far as i understand the notation voting process, i think it has the potential to operate fine. were there to be any changes to the voting process, i would discuss those with my colleagues before proceeding. >> how about the other commissioners? >> on the notation voting process, i'm supportive of the notation voting process. when i was newly on the commission, i benefited greatly from the rich written record of prior votes of commissioners often dealing with the same issue a few year later. the ability to tap into the tremendous expertise of those who served before we was very beneficial. >> i think about a week ago i saw a vote that commissioner

svinicki had written that raised issues that we actually in my office had missed. so we investigated commissioner svinicki's comments and her vote, took a few days to do that. but after investigating it, i withdrew my original vote and revoted. that's an example of the kind of dynamic you get there a notation voting process that you would completely lose if you go to an oral, at- the-table process. you don't have time to confer with staff. so i think the notation voting process works extremely well, and i juan really change much of -- i wouldn't really change much of anything. >> thank you. commissioner ostendorff? >> i grow with my colleagues, i pulled out a vote i cast july 27th of last year. it's a five-page vote on fukushima issues. these are not yes or no issues, these are very complex. here's my vote. other colleagues have similar votes where i think we have a

very rich opportunity to learn from and explain our view points in a way that we would not have if this process went away. >> will i appreciate the complexity of those. mr. chairman, can i just beg for one more since i don't see anybody else? >> without objection. >> 30 seconds. madam chair, when you have asked the question is yucca really unsuitable, unquote, you answered yes at that time. are you saying your opinion has changed? and i put in the context of what the other commissioners said the value of having a more lengthy and detailed answer to things because many of these things cannot be reduced to a yes/no answer. has your position changed? is it yes, is it no? >> i'm not sure the context of that quote, so i can't speak directly to that quote. but what i can tell you and maybe in a sense of reassuring is that i have spent much time researching yucca mountain. i believe all the analyses that i have done are technically defensible. as a scientist, i would not try

to publish anything that wasn't technically defensible, it wouldn't be publishable. most of the analyses that i did of yucca mountain for the book which was published in 2006 were done in the early 2000 time frame. that was before the license application was submitted. i have not read the license application. i have not read yet the nrc's technical analyses. of course, with time knowledge changes, more evidence comes to light, and i intend to keep an open mind. >> i appreciate your candor and your scientific integrity. thank you very much. i yield back. >> gentleman's time has expired. we were talking about votes. we took a vote this spring on finishing the nrc study. 326 members voted to do that. so i think it's by far the majority bipartisan consensus that we move forward at least finishing the study. with that, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that june 26, 2012, nrc office report of

reorganization plan number one of 1980 nrc's internal commission procedures be introduced into the record. without objection, the document will be entered into the record. in conclusion, i'd like to thank you, all you witnesses, and my colleagues. you can see it was very well attended, a lot of good questions. i want to remind members they have ten business days to submit questions for the record, and i ask the chairman and the commissioners a willingness to respond should you receive any questions from members of the two subcommittees. with that, the subcommittee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> well, coming up today here on c-span2. the alliance for health reform hosts a forum looking at how states and the federal government can implement them. we'll have live coverage this morning starting at 9:30 eastern. later this afternoon at 4:25 eastern also here on c-span2, former president bill clinton addresses the international aids conference. this weekend on american history tv -- >> so let me just begin to open up the discussion by asking it this way, what exactly is the nature of the clash between macarthur and truman? is this a clash over policy? is this a problem of

personalities? >> from lectures in history, truman and macarthur. johns hopkins professor elliott can cohen on the relationship that led a president to relieve a general at the height of the korean war saturday night at 8 eastern. and sunday, more from the contenders, our series that looks at key political figures. adlai stevenson once said he had a bad case of hereditary politics. his great grandfather was first to suggest abraham lincoln as president, and he ran twice against eisenhower. the contenders at 7:30 eastern and pacific. american history tv this weekend on c-span3. according to the centers for disease control and prevention, only 28% of americans infected with hiv are on effective treatment. cdc director thomas frieden and the health ministers from brazil

and swaziland participated in a panel discussion on solutions and challenges in targeting high-risk hiv aids populations. this event, from the international aids conference s55 minutes. is 55 minutes. >> good afternoon. i know that many people are still enjoying their lunches. it is a full, packed program, but i'm delighted to be here this afternoon. my name is dr. nils daulaire, i'm the director of global affairs at the u.s. department of health and human services. we're here today to have a conversation about national hiv strategies. how we've built them, what they mean, what their central points are. and we have as our panelists today minister benedict xa,ba wo came f became the minister of health in 2008 from swaziland.

before his election he was very actively involved with civil society. he was the founder and director of an ngo that's focusing on hiv counseling and testing in rural areas in swaz siland. he's been deeply engaged with the hiv/aids movement, and in particular with civil society oh the years. -- over the years. immediately to his right we have dr. thomas frieden. tom is the director of the united states centers for disease control and prevention. prior to the time he was the health commissioner for the city of new york where he led very innovative programs dealing with noncommunicable diseases, particularly tobacco control in new york city which has taken some of the most aggressive steps the reduce the scourge of tobacco. he himself has international experience having worked for five years in india running a tb

program in conjunction with the indian minister, ministry of health. and finally on my far right although he prefers to consider it far left from your vantage point is dr. dirceu greco who is the director of the department of st d/aids and viral hepatitis of the brazilian ministry of health. brazil was the very first country to come out with a national treatment program back in the is the 90s -- 1990s, and dr. greco who's both an md and has a ph.d. has been actively involved in the hiv/aids movement both in his current job in the ministry of health where he's been for the past two years and before that as a tenured professor of internal medicine and infectious diseases. at the university of -- [inaudible] we're delighted to have the

three of them here to talk about the development of health strategies of hiv/aids strategies. now, we know that an hiv infection is an individual concern, that the disease of hiv and aids is a community concern and that the epidemic of aids is a national and a global concern. what we're going to be focusing on in this conversation today is how these three nations have approached a come prehnsive -- comprehensive strategy from their varying about vantage poio address aids and deal with its major issues and drivers, and we will try to tease out some of the things that could be useful for those of you who are returning to your own countries to work on your own aids programs and strategies and also to illuminate some of the real challenges that still face us in the arena of aids.

so with that let me start with minister benedict xaba. >> can thank you very much. to my -- [inaudible] also distinguished delegates. the kingdom of swaziland is a landlocked country with a population of about 1.3 million. so as a country we have a high volume of hiv/aids and also the challenge of the prevalent, currently we have 26 president to the age -- 26% of the age group -- [inaudible] so what happened in 1999 -- [inaudible] declared the hiv as a national disaster. so of that population, we feel that hiv is no longer a health issue, but it's a --

[inaudible] issue. so -- in 2001 whereby we launched through the act of parliament a national emergency response council on hiv. when it was launched, then we come up with a strategic framework which is multisectorral which is guided by three principles, mainly one coordinating -- [inaudible] the national emergency response council, then also we have one national framework. so that was the beginning of our strategy framework. which really has high political commitment from the head of state down to the community level. so i can -- [inaudible] >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. dr. greco, brazil has been known as a leader in this lean that.

-- arena. i would very much appreciate your thoughts about how you've gotten there. >> first of all, thanks for the invitation to have brazil participate in such an important venue. what i can tell you all is that brazil's decision to treat people as they deserve started in 1985 just after the dictatorship was overrun and we had a new constitution. in 1986 the brazilian aids program was established. and it was established based on one thing that i think can be used from many countries including the united states, that we have a unified public health system that everyone has access to it. it was decided in the very beginning the the public, was universal, integral, comprehensive and based on

participation of the civil society. that's very very interesting because after all these years all the policies that drive our response health wise gets decided in the national health council. that's a -- [inaudible] they are elected. and the brazilian program have, of course, also since its inception at least three decisions. first of all, that health is a right to everyone and should be the likely constitutional -- [inaudible] states responsibility. second is that everything that was decided in brazil was decided by the brazilians. we did not have any financial support from the outside. and many people tell me that's very easy because brazil is the fifth economic power now. but at that time, 1996, when we

decided that everyone should have is access to all medication, we were running into a very difficult economic times. inflation was rampant. i don't remember the numbers, but it was above 300% per year. so it was at that time the decision was taken with the main pillar the civil society, the participation of the government, with the academic back-up with universities and hospitals dealing with that. so from 1996 when we decided to have drugs available to everyone today, 2012, we distribute 20 different drugs. ten of them produced in brazil, one of them after compulsory license that belonged to america at the time and -- [inaudible] we decided not -- the issue for patent, and we did not issue it.

so it's produced in brazil too. so in summary, that was how we acted. of course, think about prevention. and i forgot just one thing that was part of this background is infrastructure was that since the beginning was everything was completely based on the human rights approach. respect and diversity, respecting homosexuals, prostitution, drug users, telling that by law they would have access to everything as everybody should have everywhere in the world. >> thank you so much. tom frieden, you've dealt with this at thety level and at the national -- at the city level and at the national level over the last three-and-a-half years. tell us about your experience and where the u.s. strategy is going. >> thanks, nils. thanks for this session and

also, of course, to the leadership of the u.s., president obama, secretary clinton, for their commitment to an aids-free generation. and most of all, i really want to give credit and thank to the community activism which for the last three decades has really brought us to where we are today in hiv. much of the progress that's been made not only with is's to medications, not only with an inclusive planning progress and not only in hiv, but really has changed the way we do clinical trials, the way we plan programs for the better. so a lot of credit to a lot of hard work over many years by many people. the first requirement we found was to get good information so that we could identify the extent of the epidemic, so we could identify the groups most effective and so we could track whether the programs we were put anything place were working.

is so our first requirement has been good information openly derived and be shared so we can have a shared understanding of where we are in the epidemic and where it's moving and which programs are working and which are not working so that we can hold ourselves accountable. stemming from that was a recognition that although we all know that hiv is a very different epidemic in different countries, even within countries and even within states and each within cities -- even within cities there are microepidemics. and in order to confront them, you need to confront and enlist the strengths of each community that's most effective. so we've seen in this country tremendous decline in injection drug use associated with hiv down 80%. but we're seeing real challenges with younger men who have sex with men. people who did not grow up

seeing their friends die from aids. so that first concept of information leads to the second which is community specific solutions which draw on the strengths of different commitments. and i think -- communities. and i think the third area has to do with accountability of the health system. not merely the health care system, but the broader health system. we know in this country now that although about 18% of all people living with hiv don't know they have it, a much larger proportion was tested for hiv and is not currently in care. we need to increase the accountability of the health system for insuring that people receive the care that is optimal for their own sake and also to protect their partners. >> thank you, tom. dirceu, when where civil started

its program in the 19 -- when brazil started its program in the 1980s, it was at the very early stages of the global aids pandemic. you were pioneers. can you reflect on tom's comment about the microepidemics? what do you know about what subpopulations are in particular, um, harm's way and what is your program doing about those high-risk populations? >> yeah. that's also a very good point because when you think about brazil, that looks a lot like the united states size wise. we have many small brazils throughout the country and many small states within each state. so we have different ways of seeing, of treating, of getting to people. what we are been doing since the -- what we have been doing since the inception of the program of course with inclusive participation of the civil society in all aspects, with the

ngo and people in many areas, we're trying to working together to get people that are in conditions of much more vulnerability. what we estimate today -- and that's interesting to tell historically -- because in 1996, between 1996 and when we decided to start treatment there was a lot of counteracting from the international community including the world bank saying that it was so complex and so big, should not start treatment because just to make -- [inaudible] so complex, and we're going to get people not taking medication. and we're going to have a lot of resistance. well, we prove them wrong. we started it at that time. they were expecting at that time that by year 2000 we would have about 1.2 million people infected, and our --

[inaudible] today is that we have roughly 600,000. that's almost half of the united states estimate. we have probably 250,000 people who do not know they are infected. so that's one point, and that's one of our focus. but the other focus that i have been very critical about this discussion about treating people not infected is that we have a much more need now to find people that are infected. and do not know about -- they come to us, and they have less than -- [inaudible] it's the same throughout the world. we have about 30% of people getting to treatment after all problems -- [inaudible] so we're going to different aspects, getting to where the most of the population are, and they have been naming that everywhere. we have been fighting for that

internationally. we have to recognize that we have homosexual -- we have sex workers everywhere, we have drug users any country in this world, and we have to respect them. by respecting them it would be easier for them to get through the health system -- and that's a problem everywhere because people are afraid of being -- [inaudible] and we will be able to if we diagnose them, we have found out and that was really -- [inaudible] people being treated. there are many reasons that they're going to be back, they're going to have better quality of life, they're going to survive, and they're not going to spread the epidemic. even not only because they don't want to, but, you know, we all know that by decreasing the viral load people are much less infected. so that's the way we have been proceeding in the last few years. >> and, benedict, your country, swaziland, is known for having a generalized epidemic. whereas in both brazil and the united states it's more of a

subpopulation epidemic. how has that affected your targeting of groups that are most at risk, and how is your strategy approaching addressing that particular set of challenges? >> thank you very much. i can mention our strategy is really very inclusive. when we developed it, we had to involve a lot of players in the strategy. for example, we have got traditional leaders. besides traditional leaders, we have traditional healers where most people when they get infected -- [inaudible] also the traditional healer for treatment. so it's critical that we involve everybody. also the issue of hiv coming and testing, we -- counseling and testing, we had to find people to mobilize to test so that many people would know their hiv status. and then the people living with hiv in our strategic framework.

so what we are approaching now using the strategy, we have involved a lot of people living with hiv in our programs, more especially in our -- [inaudible] then we continue going to the community to mobilize the people in our commitment. but because this is generalized and we have discovered through our surveillance that we have got a number of people that are infected with -- [inaudible] of 35 years to 40. then you look -- [inaudible] the young people that is the out-of-school youth that is more from the age of 20-25. then you can see that the relationship between the older men and the younger ladies is very, very common. so we need to have some major measures targeted to those -- [inaudible] out-of-youth school for hiv counseling and testing. al we needed some specific

intervention targeting men only. hence, we started the campaign on male circumcision which is really going very, very well. though it was not part of our culture, so we have to start off fresh, and in order to deal with culture is not something very easy, so we have to do a lot of -- [inaudible] so we have some targeted intervention especially targeting men. then we have the intervention targeting women. for example, our prevention of mother-to-child transmission is one of the best programs in the country whereby we have -- [inaudible] 90% of our children born hiv negative from the hiv-positive mother. so it's working, but we know we can't wait, we have to -- [inaudible] therapy which also is a program which is continuing. but i might say that when we do the surveillance, we can see that it is stabilizing mainly

because of our hiv program or anti-retroviral program. so -- [inaudible] for example, the -- [inaudible] is at 40.1%. the general population is still at 26%. so that's -- >> thank you. so you're talking about, um, ways of engaging with your community. tom, the cdc is famous for it epidemiologists, for its disease control activities. not always so famous for its community engagement. i wonder if you can talk about some of the ways that you and, um, the broader u.s. government effort are really working to engage those most at risk and civil society in addressing hiv and aids. >> well, starting with the manning process, the national hiv/aids strategy was built through a series of community ng